[aur-general] TU application - Kyle Keen

Xyne xyne at archlinux.ca
Thu Dec 9 18:43:49 CET 2010

keenerd wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> > The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for
> > discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was
> > reached.
> It seemed discussion had petered out.
> > Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those
> > objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc).
> In the days before the launch there were seven replies.  Of these,
> three were positive and four were neutral.  Not one negative comment
> or objection.  (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.)
> All advice given in the neutral comments was applied.  Tone of the
> message was greatly lightened in the case of icons.  Silly workarounds
> like base64 were removed.  No one commented on the number or choice of
> packages in the lists attached to the original post.
> I will look for stronger consensus in the future.

Fair enough. I still have a different interpretation of how the discussion went
but delving into that wouldn't serve any real purpose and it would just feel
like nitpicking. I also realize that it wasn't as active as I may have
perceived it.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place? :|


More information about the aur-general mailing list